[486sx33]

Ok, this is crazy. I stopped reading when the author says evacuating the people from Fukushima was unnecessary. Of course it is necessary. What good is a world where everyone is irradiated and dying of cancer ? We have enough already. This guy is either on Westinghouse’s payroll or some kind of pharmaceutical company about to release a new injectable therapy.

Fukushima proved that the nuclear industry in fact isn’t designing reactors safe ENOUGH and that Mother Nature is very difficult to predict. Everything needs redundancies and even higher levels of safety as a nuclear “incident” large enough could destroy humanity.

[myrmidon]

> I stopped reading when the author says evacuating the people from Fukushima was unnecessary.

I disagree strongly on this.

I think I can speak for a lot of people when I say that I would be willing to trade of <some> risk of mortality in exchange for keeping and staying at my home (especially older people!).

If you displace over 100000 people you need a good justification-- if you lack observable excess mortality from radiation in the non-evacuated population, you clearly, objectively overevacuated in my view.

I do agree with the article that current regulation tends to focus too much on mitigating irrelevant/marginal risks (driving up costs too much), but I think this can still be true even though the resulting cumulative risk is too high: "Overregulation" is NOT a one-dimensional quantity.